Guessing that those guys, and one can be 100% sure they were guys, has not figured out where babies come from and why it would be a pretty good ideal to have girls grow up to be women. Unless they happen to like to sleep with other guys, which after thinking about it, goes along way in explaining those "men" over there and killing the competition for lovers

I blame George W. Bush. Had the United States not run the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and installed a (relatively!) liberal, tolerant government, these girls would never be in school and would never have been poisoned.

So, clearly, Bush and the Republicans hate women, and girls, and want them all killed.

Throw acid in a young girl's face? no outcry. Stone a woman to death for 'dishonoring' the family? No problem. Rape rooms to stifle dissent? Nothing to say. If our feminists lived in an Islamic country most would have been put to death long ago. When I hear these spoiled brats start raising hell about real human rights violations against females by terrorists and UN pedophiles instead of contraception for rich girls-gone-wild, that will be a fine day for the real "war on women."

I've been hearing rumblings from even conservatives who feel that we've been there too long. Does anyone believe that the minute coalition forces are gone, these tribal people won't go back to the good old days of Taliban rule, or something like it?

Should we stay there to protect the women? I am conflicted as to whether it's worth more American lives and dollars staying there indefinitely.

Wow, Allie. Implicit in your argument is the sad, naive belief that it is conservatives who pushed for a long-term, nation-building stay in Afghanistan. That's so sad for you, to be wrong on so many intricate levels.

The important thing is to believe that whatever you are against, people you call conservatives must be for. Whatever works for you. Whatever makes it easy.

Allie, stay ONLY if you are going to let them win, let them fight, let them defend themselves and the people who are being persecuted.

Leave if you are going to hobble them with impossible rules of engagement that are only going to get our guys killed.

But - every "Woman in Black" - every feminist, every woman - should be demanding we take a real stand there, and save those women and kids, not by "Forward this email to 10 people" campaigns, but by supporting real efforts by our military to make the streets and the schools safe over there. IMO

I've been hearing rumblings from even conservatives who feel that we've been there too long. Does anyone believe that the minute coalition forces are gone, these tribal people won't go back to the good old days of Taliban rule, or something like it?

Ever hear of the Northern Alliance?

Most Afghans hated the Taliban when they ran the show and most still do.

Oop betrays her intellectual, ideological, and moral corruption.

Because this is about shilling for Dictator Zero and his Smart Diplomacy, ins't it?

Edutcher, Afghans are turning on coalition forces since the accidental Koran burnings and the murders of some village people by the soldier probably suffering from PTSD. Afghan police and Afghan soldiers have turned their guns on American and British forces in increasing numbers.

Don't be so sure that the Afghans aren't seeing the Taliban in a new light in recent months.

The recent attacks by the Taliban in Kabul in a highly fortified area was an inside job according to what I've read.

Allie -- Tell us the reasons why you believe that Afghans might welcome the Taliban. Tell us also your understanding of how the Taliban was able to take power previously. Tell us where the Taliban was in power, and for how long. Tell us also the general history of Afghanistan, such as it is, of the alleged nation of Afghanistan. Finally, tell us about how the American presence in Afghanistan evolved, and who the major players were who developed the policy, and about their political allegiances.

Also, for someone who pontificates about Afghanistan the way you have, I certainly expect that you won't be looking any of this up.

I won't be using any cocaine. That's a much younger person's pursuit, hopefully very experimentally. But you go and iron your face again, to keep it looking the way it does. And have fun walking sideways like you must have to in order to see.

Obama has committed removal of the USA forces by 14 months from now. And the Afghans heard him loud and clear. The Taliban and Haggani Network forces are ramping up to see who gets the trophy for pushing us out.

All the last 120 months accomplished was the wearing out of the Harleys of the Rolling Thunder group riding daily to attend as an honor guard the thousands of young heroes funerals.

There is never any way a modern force could hope to maneuver and defeat determined and well armed guerrilla forces sneaking nightly down the mountain valleys of Afghanistan setting up IEDs and ambushes.

Anyone with a tactical education knew that 10 years ago. And staying there was Bush's fault while it took second place to his PR and to hope of winning in Iraq.

Then Obama doubled the bad bet because he knew he could get kudos but then lose it anyway after the 2012 election and even get to blame it all on the Military that he hates so much.

Edutcher did you read your own link, 6th paragraph down? I'll let you two experts share your vast knowledge of what's going on in Afghanistan with each other.

Apparently, Oop didn't or she'd know there's a lot more to the current spate of violence than she wants everyone else to believe ("This is largely a problem because many Afghans have serious anger management issues").

Oop is reminiscent of the many Lefties I encountered during the Vietnam War years who knew so much more about the place than any of the military people who had actually been there.

traditionalguy said...

There is never any way a modern force could hope to maneuver and defeat determined and well armed guerrilla forces sneaking nightly down the mountain valleys of Afghanistan setting up IEDs and ambushes.

In Afghanistan, Islamic radicals have been violently interrupting the education of girls for many years. It has nothing to do with us. It has nothing to do with Koran burning or the act of one of our soldiers going nuts.

April Apple, I didn't say that the attack on the girls was because of the Koran burnings or the attack on Afghan villagers. I said there is a an uptick in attacks on coalition forces by Afghan nationals as retaliation for these incidents.

My daughter sees the children and women who come to her base for medical treatment after being injured at the hands of their husbands and fathers. It has been going on for a long time and will continue to happen when our troops are gone.

Most Afghans hated the Taliban when they ran the show and most still do.

Far too much of an oversimplification. These issues are are largely tribal, with the Pashtun tribes (a large percentage of Afghanistan) often supporting the Taliban. They were never fully dislodged by our troops. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand.

But on another note, I also think that even if it's wrong to deny girls the opportunity to educate themselves it often requires some sense of realism to work within native cultures. So while I don't think it's America's fault that this happened, it is reasonable to ask what good trying to push liberal values on people has done.

The truth is, there are some in that culture who support the cause of girls and women and others who don't. It's largely a fight they're going to have to have among themselves, or very little we can do will make a difference.

If the liberal media can somehow blame "conservatives" they will. Just look at the headline. Instead of "radical" the headline calls them "conservative". But of course.

This is a human rights issue and we should hear outrage from feminists.I submit leftist feminists don't care about the girls of Afghanistan. They are too busy obsessing over Governor Walker's staff members, Ann Romney and Sandra Fluke's poor piss-ant problems.

Allie -- Maybe you can ask your daughter what our policy is in Afghanistan, how it has evolved, and who has made it. She's unlikely to know very much from a meta-perspective, but it sure beats just mouthing off on shit you know absolutely nothing about.

My favorite part was the implicit assumption that the Taliban did or would somehow take power through some mechanism of popular support. That was just precious. It was like an election when the Taliban came to power, right, sort of?

Oh well, at least you didn't call the Afghanis a bunch of primitive wogs who will never be civilized. Like Partridge.

AllieOop-My daughter sees the children and women who come to her base for medical treatment after being injured at the hands of their husbands and fathers. It has been going on for a long time and will continue to happen when our troops are gone.

Sadly, probably yes. Is your daughter in Afghanistan? This is more than a tragedy. Feminist outrage should be steering public interest and outrage over such an abuse of human rights.

The media only care if they can take a swipe at "conservatives" or blame our military failures or obsess over Koran burning.

Allie - I don't think that you don't care. Many of us are merely observing what animates many liberals. This issue isn't even on their radar.btw- thank you and your daughter for her service. You must be very proud.I'd have a much higher opinion of lefty feminists (they are in control of the feminist movement, or so I've been told) if more of them would care about something that matters.

I'm sure you will agree the Republicans and Democrats are just posturing with this 'war on women'. It's just a shtick to get votes from gullible people.

Muslim countries do everything but put women in chains (and I think some do that to.) Slavery is ok in Muslim culture. Rape is ok in Muslim culture (in fact soon-to-be executed virgins are raped so they comply with the law saying virgins cannot be executed.

That is how pathetic they are. But here in the U.S. BS posturing is a given during election time. Expect it to get worse, much worse (as River Tam said!)

Muslim countries do everything but put women in chains (and I think some do that to.) Slavery is ok in Muslim culture. Rape is ok in Muslim culture (in fact soon-to-be executed virgins are raped so they comply with the law saying virgins cannot be executed.

As to unbeatable Apaches with flir and hellfire missles; they work if we keep hundreds in the air 24/7. But the day we don't, only leg soldiers will have any effective force and they were being IEDd and ambushed as target practice for Muslims for 9 years.

The first 9 years we suffered through this disaster with a stiff upper lip, but finally respected Petraeus said in public what he knew, that it would never work without secure leg soldiers that had allied with the village elders on the ground.

After a year of that attempt, Obama's own IED that he carefully designed and planted by his announcment of a date certain to withdraw all forces has blown the arms and legs off Petraeus's plan that had once worked so well in year 4 of the Iraq conflict.

That plan was to bribe the Sunni Sheiks and give them protection from murder. They trusted Bush and cut the deal.

The bribes may seem to work again, but the village elders in Afghan mountain valleys know that they and their families will be murderd the day that we withdraw. So they are hedging their bets and are doing what Allie Oop asked about.

This is all a brilliant political-military maneuver. Signaling the full he intention of full withdrawal by a stated date achieves several things at once that are too numerous to enumerate numerically but the important bit is the promise of removal of live troops and all the attendant optics while steadily replacing them with an army of drones. Squadrons of drones. It's a sucker switcheroo.

That is the advance of the ever increasing number of drones coming in from the west. It continues until the sky is filled with them. Each bzzz is an individual drone airplane except they don't go bzzz they go like m-mm-mmm-mm-mmm and sometimes arrrr-rrrrr-rrrrrr real soft. They are a nuisance and a hazard to enemies and friends alike and they persist until a new adage develops, "Afghanistan is where Taliban go to die," which is a word replacement from a previous adage about umpires or possibly empires.

Running on a so-called war on women, lack of other other people paying for birth control, might have traction in a robust economy and widespread comfort when other problems fade into the background. But in the face of real wars on women, one can only marvel at the astute commenter who simply said "first-world problems."

Its ironic that the crisis that should "not go to waste" actually undercuts the meme that the left would like to sell.

This was a winnable situation, and the people of Afghanistan (including the women) would have be much better off in the long run if we stay. We and our miserable allies, including those inside the country, lack the political will and imagination to win (don't lay an egg, I'm not referring to the military) and a lot of people find it politically expedient to undermine the will to win.When we move out of this geopolitical crossroads someone else will move in. Don't worry, the resulting carnage and human desolation will not be televised. You'll probably never even hear about it. They're no more 'wogs' than we are by the way. Just unfortunately located.

Far from it. If you had read anything I've posted on here previously you might be able to deduce that's not true.

What I think is that there are certainly those within Afghanistan who are working to sow the seeds of change and they need to be allowed to fight it out in their own way. This is likely to do a lot more for the girls and women of Afghanistan in the long term than some outsider-enforced side project by the U.S. military.

Especially since the poor oppressed girls and women of Afghanistan are not the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place.

Muslim countries do everything but put women in chains, etc.

Paul don't be absurd. Comments like yours are the reason I'm lurking around this forum today.

Paul may not have things 100% correct, but your snark is far more ignorant. Damn you Dose. You touched the third rail with me and I'm embarrassed to have used profanity, but here's another for you. Damn you.

Patridge -- We did not invade Afghanistan to help poor or oppressed girls. We invaded to rout the Taliban and make the place inhospitable for transnational terrorist activity. We remain there because we wish to continue to prevent transnational terrorist activity, mostly, and to surround Iraq, which we do, and only remotely out of any sense of obligation to the government we installed. We are not imperialists.

If you don't believe the Afghanis are wogs beyond help, great. But you probably shouldn't say that the "natives" won't take to liberal ideals.

Actually, I think the fact that you feel the need to call them "wogs" pretty much indicates your own tendency to think they are "beyond help." Else why the vulgar terminology? I call bs on your attempt to look like you actually care about these people's welfare or "ability to change."

Did Obama ever really believe in the fight in Afghanistan? Saying that Afghanistan should be the place of emphasis gave him cover for criticism and eventual capitulation in Iraq. Yet at the moment the Afgan "surge" began, he signaled withdrawal (largely for domestic political purposes.) Did the four years of fighting under his watch mean anything to him other than a political maneuver?

It's a question that will never be answered definitively, but I have to wonder.

Has Obama ever explained to the American people why he is continuing this war telegraphing its end? If he had, these unsettling questions would not remain.

Partridge -- I use the vulgar term wogs to point out your feelings about them. It's a bit of a hammer, I know, but it's what you mean when you use the equally officious term natives. I am merely drawing this fact out.

It should be obvious to you that I don't believe Afghanis are somehow unable to have a civilized, functioning society.

Wait a minute! Allie says that it is conservatives who are the rabid war lovers. And here you say it was one of Obama's signature campaign planks that we must win the war in Afghanistan. And, of course, it was George W. Bush who said he had no interest in nation-building in Afghanistan.

Do you mean to tell me that Allie has no clue whatsoever what she is talking about? It can't be.

It has been going on for a long time and will continue to happen when our troops are gone.

And yet the British in India were able to force Indian society to do away with the practice of suttee.

Why is that, do you suppose?

One word: Will. The will to inflict wanton, base cruelty and death upon those who would perpetuate the barbaric abuse of women by burning them alive simply because they were widows. This was not acceptable to the British. And so they stopped it.

There was a time when decency ruled. We've grown soft in the West. We should execute any Taliban captured on the battlefield. When little girls are disfigured and slaughtered for being little girls, then we round up the men and hang them in the village square. Eventually they get the message. The little girls will grow into independent women.

In other words, fuck the rules of engagement. It simply requires that barbarism be faced with barbarism of a different sort. It requires reaching back into our past as warriors who represent the best of our natures by threatening with the worst aspects of that same nature.

Rose: Leave if you are going to hobble them with impossible rules of engagement that are only going to get our guys killed.

Well, you're right Rose. I don't see why Americans need to die so the people of Afghanistan can poison their daughters for learning how to read. We should have left 10 years ago. We avenged 9-11. We killed Bin Laden. Our troops did their job. It's time to declare victory and bring them home.

Mojo -- We do not kill innocent people because other innocent people died. That's not what any war is about, and certainly not this one. Further, we are a far better people than that, and I embarrassed for you that you engage in such violent masturbatory fantasies.

Try to think about policy objectives. Try to think like an officer, not a grunt.

edutcher wrote: The Russkies could barely defend themselves when they were there.

Yes, but wasn't that a proxy war? Who were the biggest backers of the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets? The region of the former Soviet Union bordering Afghanistan is incredibly mineral rich--who controls it now?

We are surrounding Iran and preventing transnational terrorists from assembling in one of their favorite places to assemble. Both are absolutely critical foreign policy goals.

No one is making anyone sign up for the military. Please try to remember this.

You just rebutted the whole Lefty rationale, enshrined in our current "Smart Diplomacy", for cutting and running.

The "We avenged 9-11. We killed Bin Laden. It's time to declare victory and bring them home." meme is the big excuse for pulling out now.

As we saw when we left 'Nam, we can't just walk away and expect no repercussions if we leave. And, yes, we now have a strategic position. Had Zero not been willing to negotiate with the Iraqis - which they wanted - we'd have Iran boxed on both sides.

chickenlittle said...

The Russkies could barely defend themselves when they were there.

Yes, but wasn't that a proxy war? Who were the biggest backers of the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets? The region of the former Soviet Union bordering Afghanistan is incredibly mineral rich--who controls it now?

To a degree, but, for once, the Russians did their own bleeding. We sent some weapons, but the Mujahideen did most of it on their own.

Seven says we aren't making anyone sign up for the military, yet the repeat deployments and brain injuries from concussion blasts have caused record numbers of suicides in veterans.

I hear this so often from those on both sides of the aisle. No skin in the game, who cares what happens to our troops. There is no excuse for this callous attitude. One of the many reasons I find Seven revolting.

If you aren't prepared to die in furtherance of the foreign policy goals of the United States of America, you should not enlist in the military. That's part of the job. That's the exact reason why the job is so honorable, and important, it's why soldiers and veterans are accorded such respect.

Seven Machos says: We did not invade Afghanistan to help poor or oppressed girls. We invaded to rout the Taliban and make the place inhospitable for transnational terrorist activity.

That's all true. But at this point in history it also doesn't dovetail well with a lot of the sentiments being displayed here. If our engagement in Afghanistan is going to be for counterterrorism rather than counterinsurgency or nation-building reasons, then we aren't going to do very much about the lowlifes who put poison in the water in girls' schools. That's the sort of thing that is going to be handled by the local authorities, to the extent it's handled at all and isn't the sort of thing you'll send a special forces unit to deal with, unless the people doing the poisoning are also acting in ways that threaten US interests directly. Plus, let's not kid ourselves, some of the people doing the poisoning may be on our side, at least as of today and until another side pays better.

Also, if anyone thinks Obama is going to completely leave Afghanistan, you're kidding yourself for either left-wing (he wants to pull out because he wants peace for its own sake) or right-wing (he wants to pull out because he hates America) reasons. We're going to stay there as long as there's a strategic need for it and that need isn't going to disappear anytime soon, if ever. The presence may be limited to Bagram Air Force Base, a fortified embassy in Kabul and some secret bases here and there, but make no mistake, there will be Americans with serious weaponry there for years to come.

Feller -- Your last sentence went off the rails a bit, but you pretty much nail our current policy, and the best policy. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation. We cannot interfere in its crises any more than Bulgaria could interfere when Tim McVeigh blew up a building or our National Guard killed innocent children in Waco.

We are in Afghanistan for sound policy reasons that have nothing to do with innocent children living or dying. Even Obama knows this, in the cockles of his heart, maybe somewhere in the sub-cockles.

As for you, Allie, another meatless, substance-free response. Your career in policy is not going to go very far. Because you can't seem to think in terms of policy. Because you are stupid.

AllieOop said... Seven says we aren't making anyone sign up for the military, yet the repeat deployments and brain injuries from concussion blasts have caused record numbers of suicides in veterans.

I hear this so often from those on both sides of the aisle. No skin in the game, who cares what happens to our troops. There is no excuse for this callous attitude. One of the many reasons I find Seven revolting.

Which still doesn't adress the fact that it is an all volunteer military.

yet the repeat deployments and brain injuries from concussion blasts have caused record numbers of suicides in veterans.

Two seperate thoughts.We should encourage more of our young people to enlist.

I'm not sure that all suicides by veterans are attributable concussions. Your conclusion doesn't sound very scientific. got a link.

Yeah seven is an asshole, but I suspect he already knows that.

No skin in the game, who cares what happens to our troops. There is no excuse for this callous attitude.

Seven, you are a coward, until the time you volunteer to go to Afghanistan, you prove yourself to be a walking talking asshole. Let's see how 6 or 7 deployments would affect you.

Don't even try to begin to walk back what you said about It being a voluntary force. You don't have it in you to care about a single human being but yourself, you make that so evident every time you comment.

Also, if anyone thinks Obama is going to completely leave Afghanistan, you're kidding yourself for either left-wing (he wants to pull out because he wants peace for its own sake) or right-wing (he wants to pull out because he hates America) reasons. We're going to stay there as long as there's a strategic need for it and that need isn't going to disappear anytime soon, if ever.

That's the impression (we're leaving) he wants the Lefties to have since they're quite restive over the fact he hasn't been as transformative as he said he'd be.

Whether it happens may be like closing Gitmo.

The adults will have something to say about it and he may not have as much "flexibility" as he thinks.

Seven, thanks for your response. And the last sentence may have been a little harsh, but I don't have a lot of faith in many of the people that are working with us (again, as of today) in Afghanistan. Admittedly, there are a lot of good people over there working with us because they really want a better country, but there are also are a lot of bad people who will work with us only until a better deal comes around. That's probably true in any war, but it seems to be more of an issue in Afghanistan than other wars the US has fought. After a decade over there, it now seems fairly clear that the population isn't primarily composed of people like the good guys in The Kite Runner.

Allie: I think more is being asking of volunteers in the service because that's pretty much the road ahead--asking more from everybody--or getting less in return. This the future of civilian government employees too--though they don't bear it and face it as well as our troops do.

Feller -- No, not The Kite Runner indeed. It seems it's a lot like the movie Osama, which I had the "pleasure" of viewing at the State Department when I was employed there. If you want to be super, super sad, don't miss it.

What's going to happen in Afghanistan is the same thing that has happened in pretty much every nation we have ever had any military truck. We'll stick it out as long as we hate to, and we'll move our policies forward as best we can. It'll be decades. Eventually, it will be just another military base.

Gene -- You can patronize me all you want. As for me, I'm just stating facts. Our soldiers are going to continue to die in Afghanistan because we have a large military force there and it's going to be there a long, long time.

Your argument, which you have made here previously, and Allie's argument amount to complaining that sometimes firefighters die fighting fires. It's awful. But there are going to be fires. So we will continue to see dead firefighters. They, and the soldiers, are heroes. They die, and they kill other people, so that we don't have to.

It truly is a heartbreaking reality that the people of that country desperately need our help, because we are the only ones capable at this time, yet because of a lack of will, as well as misunderstanding bred of lies, we cannot do what is needed with any hope of success.

When it comes down to it, wanting to help a people is just not sufficient motivation for us. We need a combination of fear and anger which is no longer there toward these people's enemies. I see us stuck there because we are too good to leave, but not good enough to win, which still leaves us better than the rest of the world as usual.

Imagine if the Chinese and the Russians we're as committed to solving this problem as we are, rather than their commitment to seeing us fail at the expense of whoever we are helping. What a world that would be.

We sent some weapons, but the Mujahideen did most of it on their ownIIRC, we spent about $500 million a year there from 1980 until the late 80's. I suspect the Saudis kicked in many millions, too. Lord knows how much went in bribes to the Pakis and others.

Obama said he would remove the surge troops by a certain date, which many people misheard as removing all troops, and he did not make himself clear. Plus, he had already added thousands before the Surge. The questions I'd like answered are, Is the situation there better than in 2008? Was it worth the additional effort and expense?

Allie, in all this I find it odd you don't tell us what your daughter thinks of her deployment, or relate any stories she might have shared.

My working hypothesis is that you're simply making up a backstory to give your overtly emotional arguments greater depth. (Hint: an emotional argument with no apparent emotion is suspect. Pass it on to Axelrod.)

7 Machos: Your argument, which you have made here previously, and Allie's argument amount to complaining that sometimes firefighters die fighting fires.

My complaint is that we have been fighting in Afghanistan more than twice as long as we fought in WWII. If the war was winnable on our terms we would have won it long ago. Originally we went in to punish the Taliban for giving succor to the perpetrators of 9-11 (if you ask me we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan). Now 11 years later we're still in Afghanistan, this time to spread democracy and to protect schoolgirls from their crazy relatives.

American has been fighting (mostly useless) wars my entire adult life. I say the hell with it. Bring our troops home and give them useful jobs rebuilding America's infrastructure. You can build a two lane bridge for the cost of some of these high tech bombs and it will last you 50 years. All the bomb does is make the rubble bounce.

Allie -- Maybe you can ask your daughter what our policy is in Afghanistan,

I wouldn't bet on that. We already busted Allie for pretending she was a nurse. So I really doubt she has a daughter in the service. She uses her "daughter's" service as a prop to browbeat people here who disagree with her on military topics. Using it as cover to call people here chickenhawks and blast veterans as being a "dishonor to the uniform" - things that civillians don't really have the cred or right to say to vets.

Give her few weeks. I bet by June her "daughter" will transfer to DC and become Ginsburg's intern. Just in time for our debate about Obamacare.

What I don't understand is how and why our enemies in this region are still alive to do these sorts of things.

Seriously people, why are they alive? Why have we not killed them all? We've been over there for a decade now and there are still enemies left alive to fight us. Something is seriously wrong here. It doesn't take ten years to exterminate a group of people. It shouldn't take ten weeks to do that job.

Sending Americans overseas to die while literally pretending to fight an enemy instead of killing that enemy is nothing less than treasonous.

Allie--I appreciate your daughter's service--if I may suggest: for your daughter's and the people she serves with, avoid providing information about where she is based and what she does. Operational security and all of that--it is really for her protection.

Allie--again thanks for you daughter's service--I never thought the internet would end up being a threat to operational security :)

Since I am an old col blimp type, my going in position is the less that can be discussed about deployments, locations, missions and all ends up saving our serving service members lives--But I am an old fart.

See? The mother's concern is not about her daughter's safety, its about she can appropriate the honor of service to use as a political prop here.

Allie, if your daughter really does exist, you need to learn that its wrong for you to appropriate her honor as your own.

You should also listen to Roger. If you really do have a daughter serving, you need to be aware that OPSEC is the *minimum* level of precaution. As Roger said "the less that can be discussed about deployments, locations, missions" the better.

Assuming that her life is more important than borrowing her moral authority to bolster whatever political point you are trying to make on a blog. But then, I don't believe her safety is important to you because she doesn't actually exist.

Allie--interesting that the military is now publishing web pages that, say, thirty years ago, would, have probably been forbidden. I do not fault your daughter for using themn--she is playing the game that now appears to be OK--no problem there.

as i said, I am an old colonel blimp type and am clearly out of touch with modern warfare in the internet age.

My comment was not meant in any way to be critical. Hope your daughter remains safe and does the great work she is obviously doing.

Roger, my daughter doesn't use them, it set up by the Navy for the families to be able to view pictures and get updated information on what their loved ones are doing over there, as well as what the 1st MLG is doing here in Camp Pendleton. OPEN to ALL.

When my daughter messages me its from her iPad to my iPad. The entire base has WIFI and THAT is not a secret either.

Allie--I understand totally. While I appreciate the intent behind them (the facebook pages), I am simply questioning the wisdom of providing such information over a medium that is easily hacked and can ultimately place all service members, and even their families, at some degree of risk. As long as it is available, and legal by all means take advantage of it. Especially if it helps connect you to your daughter. thats a good thing.

Your pattern here. The way you use her service as cover for yourself. The way you appropriate her honor as your own as cred to attack other vets for their service. Real military moms don't use their daughters as poltical props on a blog.

It doesn't help that you were already busted for trying to pass yourself off here as nurse.

Your actions also dovetail with the history of other such posers - its always a Lefty making strong statements against the war effort while wrapping himself in the moral authority of someone who has served and sacrificed. And it always turns out that the Lefty is a poser.

ThisAintHell has a roster of such posers. I'm sure we'll see your pic alongside the others very soon.

If you think the Taliban or Al Qaeda doesn't have access to these pages you are extremely naive.

And for anybody else who wants to jump on the "attack the mother of a service member", feel free, reflects on the fact that your ideology trumps respect for the families of our service members , pretty shameful.

OK. Both articles refer to all veterans having suffered brain injury not just Afghan war veterans. You made it sound as if this was a problem particular to Afghanistan war veterans. The second article addresses all people suffering brain injuries from various means, not just injuries sustained in combat. It looks as though young people of less than middle class economic means engaging in risky behavior have just as much a chance of brain injury as someone in combat. That they commit suicide at about the same rate.Back to what Seven said.People volunteer to belong in the military. Not just high school age young adults. It is a conscience choice. They volunteer knowing that the job they signed up to do is possibly dangerous. Indeed it may be why some of them sign up in the first place. I don't know. You'd have to ask them. The job of the US military is protect the people of the United States. In order to do that they kill people and destroy property. That's it. Everything else they do is secondary to that job.Your daughter is a corpsman. Traditionally a way for a conscientious objector to see combat. That takes enormous courage. I don't know if the Marine Corps allows women corpsmen in combat. It doesn't detract a whit from your daughters service though. I thank her for her service to the country.It would be nice if she could post her thoughts on her service here.

But I think the real purpose of our hostesses post was to contrast how women, especially girls, are treated in a classical liberal society as opposed to a religiously intolerant society. Perhaps contrasting the progressive liberal hysterical rant about the perceived intolerance of the "religious right" with the very real and violent intolerance of an actual theocracy. The progressive liberal left is silent on the misogyny of the Arab world.

In or out of Afghanistan misses the point of Ann's post. This is about girls seeking an education in the year 2012 in Afghanistan. Some freak-ass Neanderthal sub-human cockroach asshole decides an education for a girl is against the teachings of Allah, and little girl should die. *crickets* from the whiners who brought you Sandra Fluke.What is this - sensitivity to the religion of peace? After all, In Pelosi Obama Matthews Holder America, we can no longer say anything negative about radical Islam. Should we do something to help? Where's the concern from feminists?Should we get out the bumper stickers and the stop the genocide in Darfur yard signs? Come on liberal women, do something big. Diane Sawyer, what say you? Katie Couric, what say you? Michelle Obama, what say you?

Instead, we have a president who calls Sandra Fluke to thank her for her bravery. What a joke.

I mention my daughter when it comes up in a related post, as is MY RIGHT as her mother. She has told me to tell you to go get fucked by the way, I told her about what a vile human being I have been interacting with on Althouse.

I agree with the liberal commenters here. Not one more American soldier should die in Afghanistan even to protect some schoolgirls who want to get an education. Our resources should be directed to combatting real women's issues at home like free contraception and easier access to safe and cheap abortions.

Rusty, I barely get 5 minutes with her a day when WIFI isn't being wonky over there, she works 12 to 14 hours a day seven days a week and barely has time to shower. She is a Corpsman, I will not say exactly what is is she does in her capacity as Corpsman though because THAT is sensitive, unlike what Fen is trying to say.

You know why we can't win? Cause no one cares some Afghan school girls were poisoned by their own subhuman people because the big story today is some GIs posed with the bodies of some suicide bombers. That folks is the real problem.

AprilApple wrote: Some freak-ass Neanderthal sub-human cockroach asshole decides an education for a girl is against the teachings of Allah, and little girl should die. *crickets* from the whiners who brought you Sandra Fluke.

And finally , YES I agree with April Apple that both Conservative and Liberal women should be outraged at what is happening to Afghan females. The fact is that everything that is happening in Afghanistan, from the troops to the plight of Afghan women, does not seem to be "newsworthy" either MSM or even Fox.

I read some data a while ago that showed a higher suicide rate amongst non-Combat Arms folks over Combat Arms folks but I can't find it anywhere.

The high TBI count really is a symptom of how good our Medical folk and their techniques are; most would have died in the past from brain swelling and other injuries sustained in the IED blast.

We traded lost lives for long term damaged people, some of whom will not survive the recovery process. I hope people can remember that and be thoughtful as to how that came about; Because of better combat medicine techniques.

SGT Ted,Before my daughter joined the Navy in 2002, she was in the Army Reserves. She did Basic Training at Fort Jackson in SC.

We went down to Colombia SC to see her graduate she was full of poison ivy from when they did their bivouac.

She did say that Army Basic Training was far more difficult than Navy Boot camp. She was a sharpshooter category in both the Army and now in the Marines when they had to qualify before going to Afghanistan.

She wasn't required to take the Navy boot camp, but chose to. She also says she much prefers the Navy over the Army as far as what branch of military is better to serve in, sorry. ;)